Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 12:55:17PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
> > I'm wondering if we should switch to bzip2 for compressing sets in
> > order to reduce image size?
>
> Or rzip (which we c/should import in that case), which uses the bz2
> library and adds some stuff to do much longer-range compression
> sorting.
rzip can't decompress to stdout, making it harder to use for extracting
sets. We'd need to have separate "decompress the set" and "extract the
set" stages.
It also uses _much_ more memory on compression - an otherwise idle box
here with 256MB of RAM started swapping when trying to rzip a recent
i386 comp set. After 8 minutes it had made a 50 byte output file, while
a similar speed box with 2GB of RAM took 45 seconds to rzip the same
file.
rzip however does produce a smaller compressed file in this case:
15104 -rw-r--r-- 1 simonb simonb - 15451684 Nov 7 11:57 comp.tar.rz
18680 -rw-r--r-- 1 simonb simonb - 19097153 Nov 7 11:56 comp.tar.bz2
23016 -rw-r--r-- 1 simonb simonb - 23542910 Oct 24 23:00 comp.tar.gz
82992 -rw-r--r-- 1 simonb simonb - 84920320 Nov 7 11:55 comp.tar
Decompression times and memory usage (rss column from ps) are:
gzip 1.2sec, max memory 740k (using zcat)
bzip2 10.8sec, max memory 4276k (using zcat)
rzip 13.9sec, max memory 6524k
So bzip2 and rzip have their space advantages, but gzip is much faster
and uses a whole lot less memory. There's still a large class of
machines where these are issues...
Personally, I think we should stick with gzip for sets, but maybe we
have an option for using bzip2 so people who want to use it locally can?
Simon.
--
Simon Burge <simonb@wasabisystems.com>
NetBSD Support and Service: http://www.wasabisystems.com/